The weblog of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice. Here's where editorial panellists, readers and contributors can come together and share their view on all aspects of IP law and practice. Join us!

ACTA: first suggestions received

Following Friday's request for assistance from readers regarding those issues within the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) which most require serious treatment in the form of analysis in JIPLP (see "ACTA: the search for the key issues", here), this weblog has already received some helpful suggestion:

"Border enforcement

• If Customs can act on its own without a court order and without rights holders information, how can a port inspector possibly determine what is counterfeit versus a parallel import?

• Many importers cannot afford to fight a Customs determination of infringement for low value shipments. Is administering civil fines for infringing goods which is oftentimes an undefined quality appropriate?

• If Customs can act on its own without a court order and without rights holder information, won't some IP necessarily be granted more "free" border enforcement? In other words, won't a Customs official be more likely to recognize a counterfeit version of a famous mark and not one of a not so famous mark? How can Customs officials possibly know of all trademarks that are actually registered without checking all of the marks on all the goods on all of the shipments in order to provide non discriminatory treatment at the border -- and this won't happen as a result of limited resources and the need not to add to entry delays?"

"Enforcement in Digital Environment

• How can governments orders ISPs to turn over subscriber information to an unrelated rights holder upon an allegation of infringement? Why is this not protected business information? Does the ISP own this information so that it has the right to give it away?

• How can privacy be protected in a digital environment with so much prejudice in favor of rights holders? Who owns information related to commercial transactions involving two or more parties both of whom may be unrelated to the rights holder or the ISP and who has the right to disclose that information?"

The weblog thanks Lauren V. Perez (LVP Solutions) for these bullets and looks forward to receiving more from other readers.

Receive jiplp blogposts by email

1,044 people have already subscribed to receive items posted on this weblog by email. To join them, just type your email address in the box below, then click the 'Subscribe' button

email:

JIPLP tweets

JIPLP now has over 2,300followers on Twitter.You too can follow JIPLP on Twitter. The journal's Twitter page can be found at http://twitter.com/JIPLP

jiplp page views since November 2009

JIPLP by phone and QR

To enjoy JIPLP via your mobile device, all you need do is visit m.jiplp.oxfordjournals.org

Our cover

About this weblog

The principal contents of this weblog are drawn from the Current Intelligence features which are published monthly in JIPLP.

Current Intelligence articles are designed to analyse recent key cases, legislation and topical matters. Normally they are of between 500 and 1,500 words (though in exceptional cases a greater word length may be agreed with the Editors).

The selected Current Intelligence articles are now posted on this weblog to enable readers to engage with them, posting comments if they so choose. All comments are moderated, which means that they will not appear immediately upon their being posted.

About the Journal

JIPLP is a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to intellectual property law and practice. Published monthly, coverage includes the full range of substantive IP topics, practice-related matters such as litigation, enforcement, drafting and transactions, plus relevant aspects of related subjects such as competition and world trade law.

The journal is specifically designed for IP lawyers, patent attorneys and trade mark attorneys both in private practice and working in industry. It also aims to be an essential source of reference for academics specialising in IP, members of the judiciary, officials in IP registries and regulatory bodies, and institutional libraries. Subject-matter covered is chosen for its practical relevance and international interest.

... and authors in search of an article

JIPLP is often approached by prospective authors who would like to write something, but who would appreciate guidance regarding subject-matter, style and so forth. Here are a few pointers:

* Ask yourself what is it that you'd like to read in the journal, since that is handy rule of thumb which probably reflects the interests of your colleagues and your competitors;

* IP law and practice is very much a 'here and now' activity for JIPLP subscribers. The history of a right may be inherently interesting, or even sometimes relevant to the resolution of a specific issue, but would you expect a reader to look for it in JIPLP?

* Recycled Masters' dissertations and university essays make poor articles and are often difficult to convert from a piece that is designed to display erudition and research ability into an article that addresses lawyers, businesses and decision-makers. It's usually easier to start afresh by working out who your readers are and what you want to tell them.

* Please comply with the authors' instructions and note the journal's preferred length for articles. Most authors like to publish long ones, but subscribers tend to prefer reading shorter ones.

Peer reviewers

All substantive articles published in JIPLP are peer-reviewed. If you'd like to be considered for admission to the roll of peer reviewers, please email Sarah Harris here, and either attach a short-form CV or let him know of your credentials for reviewing articles on IP-related issues.